Comments

Easing of regulations that govern how firms make employees redundant.
Why not simply abolish redundancy and simply allow employers to dismiss people with just statutory notice regardless of how long they have been working there(except where there has been misconduct in which case immediate dismissal is of course the case).

The scrapping of working time regulations and, even more controversially, all data protection laws, which the report will say are an "expensive bureaucracy which fails to protect people's data".
Issues of Identity Theft and unsolicited communications are more of a problem than ever and likely to become more of an issue in modern society so Data Protection is becoming more of an issue.

So far as Working Time Directive goes, ideally all limitations on Working Hours and all Minimum Wage legislation should be abolished.

Charities offering bingo competitions or raffles should no longer need a gaming licence.
Gambling is an entirely non productive activity, it encourages corruption and gives people false hopes that discourages people from trying to get on in life through hard work.

However, the big problem in the public sector (and many large businesses) is that it are filled up by lots of people unemployable elsewhere. Such people have a tendency of getting into management, which again means that the good and talented leave in disgust.

However, the big problem in the public sector (and many large businesses) is that it are filled up by lots of people unemployable elsewhere.

Actually Jorgen the split is between goal-orientation and process-orientation - most of modern bureaucratised living favours those who process paper or simply administer - it actively forces out those who wish to pursue goals rather than simply conform to the status quo. Most institutions run on rails and the people in the cab are neither steering nor looking ahead - simply sitting in the cab

Labour is, with the help of the BBC, already screaming blue murder about ‘cuts,cuts,cuts,’

The ST has it that:

”Mr Cameron is believed to be fully behind Mr Redwood's programme in what will represent a significant shift to the Right at a time when his leadership has come under fire from his own side and his party is trailing Labour in the polls. George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, is expected to join Mr Redwood for the document's launch on Friday.”

And the Mail on Sunday:

“A spokesman for Shadow Chancellor George Osborne said he had been working closely with Mr Redwood.
"This is John Redwood's report, but the two men will be on stage together at the launch," he said.”

The BBC, however, says:

“Shadow chancellor George Osborne worked on the proposals with Mr Redwood but a party spokesman said he was only advising him on how to write and present the report.

The spokesman also told the BBC that the proposals are not party policy and they would need to pass through "many hoops" before being adopted.”

By the end of the week, no doubt, these proposals will have come as a ‘complete surprise’.

Most people are in favour of cutting bureaucracy: only Minicrat Jobsworths and Labour Social Micro-Managers get their jollies from regulating everything to the nth degree. Properly presented, there is no reason why such ‘stealth tax cuts’ should not resonate with the British Public, especially when supported by stories in sympathetic papers about dotty bits of regulation being enforced by a Jobsworth: the lady in the village who has been forbidden from tending a village flowerbed readily comes to mind, as daft a bit of ‘elf ‘n safety as you could wish.

How Mr. Cameron deals with these proposals will be very much an indicator of whether he has the stomach for a fight, both with Labour and the EU.

Funny, some conservative policy suggestions at last! and just look at the comments.

Why should a Conservative party standing for election worry about what the BBC or Labour Party feel about its proposals. Or to put it another way why should we allow the political opposition and its media mouthpiece control over the policies of the conservative party.

This is that what they have reported suggests that there is already an nuanced inching away of Osbourne from the report. If there is further outcry which alarms the leadership, expect the inches to become a foot.

I am not for a moment suggesting that one should predicate one's policies on the basis of the tastes of the BBC, but that does not mean to say the BBC does not exist and is not a virulent opponent of the Conservative Party. The BBC is a fact of life.

How the leadership reacts to the inevitable assault will be an indicator of whether they are up for a fight with gross over-regulation and the EU or not.

Much slagging off of John Redwood as right wing on the BBC by Labour Minister - but Peter Sissons was sympathetic to what John was saying.

Labour spokesman John Hutton Dept of Enterprise denies that regulation hurts small businesses.....WOW what an idiot, like a NuLab dalek 'regulation does not hurt business.... regulation does not hurt business'.

He ignored the fact that Redwood said that we would lower tax rates only where it will increase government revenue....

alleging this is a lurch to the right...but Redwood made it clear that the proposed measures would increase employment and living standards, and generate more money for government spending.

Labour's attitude to enterprise is total disinterest.

John Redwood spoke softly and convincingly. Shame about the tie, but his haircut was neat and he came across as reasoned and determined. I was impressed.

Never understood why the stake is taxed and the winnings are tax-free.

Even the USA taxes gambling winnings'

For a start, bookmakers and exchanges pay a gross profits tax so the stake isn't taxed. If you try to charge tax on winnings, losing punters could quite rightly ask for losses to be deducted.

To say gambling is a non productive activity is a strange statement, as you could examine most industries and find them to be non productive. What does the stock market produce that's tangiable. Gambling supports tens and indirectly hundreds of thousands of jobs because the vast majority of people view it as entertainment. The same as pub industry. To go after gambling like out of date puritans would lose us further ground imo.

Huntsman, you seem to be indicating that the Conservative party can only offer policies which do not conflict with ether Labour or the BBC view of the world. Yet you say exactly the opposite, which is it? Either the Conservative party will offer the British people policies it feels will be good for the country, or they will only offer those policies they can without upsetting either the BBC, Labour and the EU.

We do not elect the BBC to run this country, it has absolutely no public mandate to dictate the confines of political debate, it is well past time the Conservative party stood up to this anti-Conservative media conglomerate, instead all we see is “we can’t do that it will upset the BBC and we will get a bad press.”

If the BBC is as you say a virulent opponent of the Conservative Party then why is the Conservative leadership pussy footing around and trying to please a virulent opponent. If the suggestion is they must do this in order to gain power, then they are either allowing the Labour party and the BBC to dictate their policies, or they are not being truthful with the voters.

If you are really suggesting that the Conservative leadership is so craven that it will ditch these policy suggestions to avoid a bad press from an avowed anti Consevative media, then I might suggest that the country does not need, and would regret, allowing such a weak willed organization to gain the reigns of power.

The only problem is that this report has been issued at a time when the conservative party is falling in the polls, if it continues to fall this so called lurch to the right, of course will be the reason, if there is a reverse it will be because the Brown bounce has lost its effect.

I think the reaction of the Labour party to this report will depend on its reception by the public (probably not the wider public), and I would suggest that if the general reaction is positive then Mr. Brown might try the daring 'wheeze' that he has just apparently done over gambling! According to an article in yesterday's Mail entitled - ''Sham of Internet gambling crackdown' - Labour's pledge of a crackdown on advertising by foreign gambling websites was branded a sham last night as it emerged they can get round restrictions simply by registering in the Isle of Man'!

Mr. Brown will probably enjoy composing a statement that will in some respect seem to forestall/cap the ideas or some of them in this report - if it seems popular, and then at a later date quietly ditch them.

The lead item on the news report on BBC News 24 at 10.00 am was the preview of this report. It was presented with such a left wing bias that words fail me! John Redwood was given a very balanced hearing by Peter Sissons but I just fear that we will have a whole week of loony left rantings and "news" manipulation by the BBC. Whatever happened to objective and impartial reporting?

I like Redwood! A good solid conservative, though a bit too clever by half. He's suffers a bit from the Tony Benn syndrome: ie) a member of the Party's 'hard right/left' now a dotty uncle figure! But as far as his analysis goes- he's spot on. My own sneaking suspicion is that he'll be pushed to a distance by the party's 'right-on' brigade, but most of his reccomendations will be adopted as policy. If not by us, then Labour!

It would be nice if one day a BBC journo actually questioned what a NL minister said rather than just repeating it subserviantly.

For example why not ask Andy Burnham about how his criticism of the proposed Tory 'tax cuts' as being 'right wing' compare with the business tax cuts Gordon Brown so proudly announced in his last budget as Chancellor.

But then that would mean not going along blindy with Govt spin so obviously that will never happen!

simon - I disagree. I think Redwood's softened his approach so much that his brilliant mind could and should be made more use of now.

He also has the advantage of being older. He is the perfect foil for Osborne who looks too young, and lacks gravitas. They would look right working as a team...let alone the fact that they will produce high quality policies worthy of the Conservative Party and raise our morale enormously.

A lurch to the Right. GOOD. We need to put some clear blue water between us and Nu Lab. What we need is some common sense policies. The centre ground is too crowded atm and unless Cameron can be shown to be different, he doesn't stand a chance.

Of course Brown is 10 points ahead. So far he has been calm and reasonable in what he has done. What needs to be revealed is the damage he did as Chancellor to pensions, small companies, the armed forces etc etc.

It is time to wind back the damage inflicted. We all know that the EU will not allow the opt outs that Redwood proposes, so the only answer is to pledge that unless they get what they want, we will leave.

The same could be said about football, maybe we should "regulate" that?

Not a bad idea.

One of the few good things Major did was to introduce the lottery. It enables the cash of a greed-crazed culture-free underclass to be channelled into deserving causes including art galleries, museums and theatres.

BTW, I have never bought a lottery ticket in my life.

Soccer strikes me as an activity which could be similarly harnessed. Vast sums are wasted on transfer fees and God knows what else, often spent by the dubious foreign businessmen who seem to have cornered the market in soccer clubs. Appalling yobby specimens like Beckham become billionaires overnight.

A truly civilised society would ensure that a substantial slice of the 'footie' action is transferred to more deserving sectors such as orchestras, theatre, opera and ballet. Since those who gain pleasure from spectacle of men in shorts (NB no women!)kicking a bladder of air aimlessly round a field clearly have oodles of cash to waste I'm sure they won't miss a few billions.

What does the stock market produce that's tangiable.
Companies in which shares are owned are engaged in business activity, it may be good or it may be bad, mostly the companies themselves are doing something useful playing a part in the fabric of society and they have to be run somehow. Companies and government indeed both use it as a method of raising money, but the Stock Market is not just some kind of system for shifting of capital, it is also a system of determining control of companies allocating shares that give people rights in taking decisions in how the companies are run and is part of the regulation of the operation of businesses. In some cases it does end up operating almost like a form of gambling, but this is not what it was established for and it is an important part of maintaining the national and international economy, gambling is not - gambling redistributes capital without merit, without actually playing any function in producing anything or arranging things to any good purpose. It is a by product of economic activity, a form of economic waste.

Surprised that ConHome has missed the most important part of the report, which is nothing less than a reclamation of national sovereignty from the EU.

It is proposed that Britain should simply unilaterally declare that it rejects EU legislation that penalises our businesses if the EU will not play ball.

Pretty important stuff.

From the Telegraph report:

"In a section that seems certain to inflame internal Tory rows on Europe, Mr Redwood argues that Britain's opt-out from the European Social Chapter, which was removed by Labour within days of taking of office in 1997, should be restored. Britain should go further in negotiating more opt-outs, the policy group says, including large numbers of employment and social policy rules.

As a "last resort", the document says, Britain should legislate at home to "disapply EU regulation unilaterally where we think its is against our national interest". Such a course of action would set up the biggest conflict between Britain and Brussels since the UK joined the Common Market in 1973."

The problem is not that these policies, if adopted by the Conservative Party, clash with what the BBC or the Labour Party think. Of course, they clash and good luck. The real problem is that almost all of it is EU legislation, which we are legally obliged to implement. Now, what is John Redwood or anybody else propose to do about that? Ignore the fine the ECJ will impose? Threaten to come out if we cannot do as we like?

Helen - the solution I have heard mooted is to simply use the remaining veto to block routine EU business.

We can just refuse to pay EU fines. Let them kick us out rather than withdraw. They never would. EU reform is possible with a strong enough spine, as Margaret Thatcher showed when she won our rebate

Posted by: Tory T | August 12, 2007 at 12:12

Oh dear, dear. Major's "beef war" ploy ... look where that got him. And as for the Thatcher rebate - how many more times? Thatch had a veto on the new funding package. It could not go ahead until the "colleagues" agreed the rebate. In this case, the UK would be the supplicant and the "colleagues" would hold the veto.

Repealing EU legislation and refusing to pay fines would be, de facto and de jure an abrogation of the EU treaties, the inevitable consequence of which would be the UK withdrawal from the EU.

Desirable though that would be, is that really Tory policy? Is that really what Redwood is saying, or is this merely a continuation of the fanatasy which holds that, if we wave a big stick, the "colleagues" will roll over and reform to treaties to conform with the UK (Tory) model of the EU, whatever that is?

Surely they are treated the same as any other asset, with CGT on a sale after death being charged only on any gain accruing since the date of death?

That is not the point. The fact that Executors cannot secure Probate before Capital Taxes have been assessed by HMRC means the Executors must borrow funds to pay the IHT plus accrued interest - and then sell assets from the Estate to repay the bank loan.

Thus the Executors can be paying IHT + CGT to settle an Estate while both lending bank and HMRC charge interest to the Executors before they have access to the Estate

Lets face it, any regulation that originates from Brussels will never be repealed by project Cameron. If Cameron was serious he would not have dumped the Fishing policy, the only policy that was based on an honest way on how it could be achieved.

The French appear to ignore those bits of EU rules and regulations that they disagree with and no sanctions are applied. Perhaps the UK should do the same although I suspect that the current government have neither the guts or the gumption to follow such a route!

It is not quite so simple as a regulation. Once Parliament agreed to the supremacy of EU Law it provided The High Court with an obligation to implement that decision in its rulings.

Unless the treaties themselves are revoked, The High Court has not option but to find against any attempt by the Government to ignore EU legislation since these are not interstate treaties but domestic law

For those complaining about the BBC coverage of this. John Redwood quoted from the Telegraph article.

He says the BBC should not use its "poll tax" licence fee and monopoly rights to compete unfairly in markets not covered by its "primary television channel marketplace", while the corporation should not be allowed to advertise its own output on channels which do not take commercial advertising.

Don't expect the BBC to say anything nice about the Conservatives any time soon. Redwood's intent is clear and Auntie Beeb will not like it.

John Redwood's proposals are a step in the right direction. However the public prefer eye catching headlines that they can factor into their own lives rather than the loosening of complicated regulations which mean nothing to them. If we accept that the BBC are completely anti the Conservative Party then why not go for the jugular and announce that a Conservative government would scrap the licence fee and make the BBC a commercial subscription service. The average person would rub their hands at the prospect of £11 a month saved which could be spent on buying subscription services such as football matches over satellite or broadband.
Another popular measure would be the scrapping of many of the quangos which cost the taxpayer £120bn per year and translating that into the amount of cash which could be returned to people's pockets to pay for their inflating mortgages etc.

the solution I have heard mooted is to simply use the remaining veto to block routine EU business.

We can just refuse to pay EU fines. Let them kick us out rather than withdraw. They never would. EU reform is possible with a strong enough spine, as Margaret Thatcher showed when she won our rebate
I rather think they would boot the UK out if the UK simply blocked all EU business, that would not be the way to withdraw and nor are the higgest objections to the EU over economic policy - the best way to withdraw is as amicably as possible allowing the UK to implement it's own social and economic policies while still co-operating perhaps in ESA and other research projects and in Interpol and of course through NATO, and yet be left free to explore new trading relations with Commonwealth countries and the rest of the world.

The main problem with the EU is that through the European Convention on Human Rights and European Courts of Human Rights and of Justice they are tying member states into Liberal social policies - the European Convention is virtually written in stone so that even if most members of the parliament and Council of Ministers were openly opposed it would be difficult even to make small amendments. Once outside the UK would be free to implement far harder measures against terrorists and other criminals introducing Capital and Corporal Punishment and be able to prioritise National Security over notional rights of many who have forfeited all moral right to such rights and who will merely exploit them.

Too bloody right. The social democrats are too comfortable with this supposedly 'stable' economy, while all the time China and India are making leaps and bounds.

However, we need to destroy this image of 'lurching to the right'. We should show this as common sense, good investment for the future, and bang home the point that we can cut back taxes and get MORE revenue. We should also point out that Labour are more interested in blackening our name than they are cutting the huge tax burden on the population.

I doubt there will be a majority in both Houses willing to do so; and then it still requires The High Court to accept a declaration of UDI against the primary body of EU Law.

Repealing the Government of Ireland Act 1920 would not de-legitimise the Dublin Government, and it is a moot point whether simply repealing an Act in a Subsidiary Regional Assembly would restore sovereignty to Westminster once it had passed to Brussels.

It would require force majeure such as removing EU facilities or imposing tariffs on goods from the EU (which might breach WTO rules); or deporting EU nationals not holding UK work or residence permits - which would cause problems for UK nationals in Europe.

Tom Tom @ 12.59 - Just think about the reaction that took place once the EU ban on livestock sales were lifted - also the French farmers actions with anything that might affect them, ireespective of rules and regulations!

Repealing the Government of Ireland Act 1920 would not de-legitimise the Dublin Government, and it is a moot point whether simply repealing an Act in a Subsidiary Regional Assembly would restore sovereignty to Westminster once it had passed to Brussels.
There is a difference though with your analogy in that the UK would not be attempting to repeal the EU but merely leave it, both the UK and the Republic of Ireland have their own military forces, own police forces and courts and so their own separate identity - the Republic of Ireland is not the Irish Free State as referred to in the original act.

If the courts refused to go along with a withdrawal from the EU, then surely more direct means might be needed such as enacting measures to suspend civilian courts and take direct control and perhaps institute a State of Emergency and suspend civilian government - attempts by the judiciary to keep the UK in the EU could then be considered as treasonable.

While these policies would undoubtedly benefit the UK economy I worry about the political fall out. Any appearance of scrapping health and safety or data protection laws will not appeal to the swing voter. It cannot be stressed too often that we must get beyond our core vote.

Of course, all this would be easier if the BBC weren't waging such a partisan campaign. Perhaps the young researchers take over in August, or perhaps the whole corporation is rejoicing in having a Labour Government they can wholeheartedly support. Either way we need to be much more vigorous in taking them on. We should be compiling dossiers and making a fuss (privately if necessary). The BBC will push it as far as they can - but with recent controversies over manipulation they feel vulnerable and if our press team shows some fight we might be able to restore at least a semblance of balance to their coverage.

Coming out with an obviously anti-BBC policy (such as stopping unfair competition in local media markets) might help our game. We can then say 'Look, the BBC is biased because we're going to hurt their commercial interests' which I think the ordinary public will find more credible than 'The BBC is biased because they're all a bunch of leftie graduates'.

How to take on the BBC is a question for the whole of the right wing movement.

Redwood's proposals are a step into nowhere. They represent a fantasy in which he has indulged himself for the best part of 15 years. He has no means of delivering it, and, even if he had, Cameron has no intention of allowing him to.

Really looking forward to the full publication. Hopefully Cameron will at least take the bulk of the recommendations. We need to be distinctive and this is one way in which we can do that.

Its a tough juggling call, showing the public we want to keep the state small, without cutting public services or hurting them. Its possible but it needs us to help the public make that leap of imagination. We need to make the case, and to ignore those who wish to belittle it.

If the courts refused to go along with a withdrawal from the EU, then surely more direct means might be needed such as enacting measures to suspend civilian courts and take direct control and perhaps institute a State of Emergency and suspend civilian government - attempts by the judiciary to keep the UK in the EU could then be considered as treasonable.

Now we see where Redwood's ideas would lead some Conservatives. Hardly a recommendation !

There is a difference though with your analogy in that the UK would not be attempting to repeal the EU but merely leave it, both the UK and the Republic of Ireland have their own military forces

In fact the UK would be attempting to "repeal the EU" as you put it. It would be unilaterally refuting treaties it had signed including the as-yet unratified Constitition and doing so outside any agreed procedures for amendmening said treaties.

The UK would in that instance be doing exactly the same thing as if it repealed the Independence of India Act 1947 or the Government of Ireland Act 1920 since the Constitutions of both those countries are predicated upon the Acts of the Westminster Parliament. Indeed the Islamic Republic of Pakistan would not exist but for the 1947 Act.

A unilateral rupture of legality is not in itself sufficient to achieve what you want - it would require a policy of actions to enforce such separation such as refusal to hand over budget contributions or refusal to hold Euro Elections in 2009

No you are not an ignoramus, but it is confusing because simply repealing an Act of Parliament from which all sorts of real changes have resulted does not in itself reverse those real changes.

Abolishing the 1967 Abortion Act does not reverse the abortions of the past 40 years by virtue of a simple repeal.

By that token the only way to effect the changes you want by repealing the Act - is to take real measures to make the consequences of the Act invalid.

Law is meaningless unless real effects take place. So to escape the EU the UK would have to do things opposed to EU policy and the main problem would be to recover English Courts from the EU judicial overview.

In other words UK courts would have to restrict themselves to UK laws.

The UK would in that instance be doing exactly the same thing as if it repealed the Independence of India Act 1947 or the Government of Ireland Act 1920 since the Constitutions of both those countries are predicated upon the Acts of the Westminster Parliament. Indeed the Islamic Republic of Pakistan would not exist but for the 1947 Act.
Ireland exists, the UK exists, India exists, Pakistan exists and their existence is not now dependant on Acts of the Westminster parliament - indeed if it ever came to it short of using nuclear weapons the UK now could not now defeat India on Indian territory and Pakistan has quite formidable conventional forces too.

The UK withdrawing from the EU even unilaterally would not revoke the EU - in fact I rather think that other member states and the parliament would agree to it, but if they didn't then if the UK leaves anyway there would be little they could do about it. In fact the introduction for arrangements for leaving the EU are more about achieving the minimum of disruption both for the leaving state and for the EU.

In fact the EU would far rather a member state left than attempted to disrupt EU business, but if they attempted to frustrate attempts to leave then things might well have to get nasty.

A unilateral rupture of legality is not in itself sufficient to achieve what you want - it would require a policy of actions to enforce such separation such as refusal to hand over budget contributions or refusal to hold Euro Elections in 2009
How about the simple matter that if they try anything, the UK has the firepower to wipe Brussels off the face of the earth. If the UK leaves then it leaves, the EU would no longer be recognised as having authority over the UK - however the likliehood is that the EU would not oppose the UK leaving. On the other hand starting by trying to get them to force the UK out rather than saying we were leaving and preparing, would result in them possibly booting the UK out and then out of spite imposing economic sanctions.

This has been the problem of the policy of "In Europe, but not run by Europe" and of attempting to disrupt EU business, the fact is that there is a choice in that if a member state finds itself being outside the consensus then rather than attempt simply to block everything, it is far more sensible to leave, and what has happened is that every single government from the Heath government on has talked tough and extended control of Brussels over UK policy.

The Conservative Party could say refuse to field candidates
This would test how well UKIP could do in the absence of the Conservative Party, although I suspect that a number of Europhiles would get together and put up Independent Conservative candidates under a sort of Christian Democrat banner.

but if they didn't then if the UK leaves anyway there would be little they could do about it.

Of course there is....

You do make one valid point - the UK has the firepower to wipe Brussels off the face of the earth war is a prime example of what I stated - A unilateral rupture of legality is not in itself sufficient to achieve what you want - it would require a policy of actions to enforce such separation

That is why India had to go to war with Pakistan in 1971 to attain separation of East and West Pakistan - there was no other way constitutionally for Bangladesh to become independent.

There are no mechanisms for Britain to unilaterally withdraw from the treaties and a ruling of the ECJ that Britain was in violation would oblige the High Court not refuse to enforce any Acts of Parliament not in conformity with the EU treaties.

In short laws passed by Westminster which violated EU Treaties/Constitution or Charters would not be enforced and would be unlawful

Abolishing the 1967 Abortion Act does not reverse the abortions of the past 40 years by virtue of a simple repeal.

By that token the only way to effect the changes you want by repealing the Act - is to take real measures to make the consequences of the Act invalid.
You have to start where you are, if the UK left the EU there would be initial alterations to rewrite constitutional rules and make provisions for things that the EU had been doing that it was considered desirable to continue after separation and changes to account for trading arrangements internationally.

Then the UK could separate and it would then consider law as a totality as it was at the point of leaving, where it was considered desirable for changes in UK laws then they could be changed and where not then they could be left as they were - whether they had been introduced to comply with EU regulations or not.

The aim has to be to do things better in the future, there are enough things to do in the future without distractions of attempting hugely complicated retrospective changes.

That is why India had to go to war with Pakistan in 1971 to attain separation of East and West Pakistan - there was no other way constitutionally for Bangladesh to become independent.
The war happened because Pakistan decided not to allow East Bengal then known as East Pakistan to secede and form Bangladesh (Land of Bengali's apparently it means), the EU is not Pakistan c1971 and they have no forces, indeed I doubt France would get it's military involved and the US while they might be unhappy with the UK leaving the EU do not want an expansionist European nation who might threaten them militarily and would probably be mildly supportive of the UK at the G7 and World Bank - and the UK is not as closely a part of the EU as East Bengal was of Pakistan, in that case it had been a single country with a single head of state, single armed forces and a national law. The UK is not at this point in this position.

There are no mechanisms for Britain to unilaterally withdraw from the treaties and a ruling of the ECJ that Britain was in violation would oblige the High Court not refuse to enforce any Acts of Parliament not in conformity with the EU treaties.
There are mechanisms for separation, once the UK government had decided it was withdrawing then it would go ahead preferably with co-operation of the EU, but without it if they tried to oppose. They need to be given the opportunity to agree a withdrawal timetable with the UK before any kind of unilateral procedures are undertaken.

The only country to have withdrawn from the EU is Greenland in 1985. The mechanism for withdrawal would be Art 54 of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which permits unilateral withdrawal from a treaty if all other parties to the treaty agree .

Art 70 states that withdrawal "does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination"

The procedure I-60.2 set out in the Constitution for withdrawal requires the consent of the European Parliament plus the majority of member states agreeing - but the sine qua non of I-60.2 being applicable is ratification of the Constitution.

So the best way to start the ball rolling is to fail to ratify the Constitution..

>Less regulation of the financial services industry - including deregulation of the mortgage industry.<

The FSA would doubtless be interested in this one. Aside from mortgage provision (which the FSA never wanted to regulate in the first place), what other financial regulation do people think we could do without?

TomTom | August 12, 16:04
"..So to escape the EU the UK would have to do things opposed to EU policy.."

By analogy, I could not simply resign from my job; the only way out would be to get sacked for grave misconduct?

Why can one not just give notice of termination of treaty/ies, thereafter giving effect to the domestic legislative changes needed to give effect to the termination?

In the case of Union with Scotland, the Treaty & resultant Act said one parliament and one only for Britain. Does that mean that devolution to a Scottish Parliament is ultra vires? It also said "..forever", so maybe dissolution of the Union is wholly impossible (unless Scotland does a Bangladesh on us!)

TomTom @ 1626 "There are no mechanisms for Britain to unilaterally withdraw from the treaties"

Why don't we consult President Putin on his techniques as he had no problem recently in announcing a "moratorium" on Russia's participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty.
Britain's membership of the EU is small beer compared with the return of an aggressive new version of the cold war. Anyway all of the momentum needed to bring Britain out of the EU is the job of politicians and not lawyers. By this I mean that if the people of this country were given a realistic audit of what it would mean financially to every citizen of the UK if withdrawal took place, then the process would be unstoppable. In this scenario the EU would accede rather than allow dissent to develop in other more traditionally pro-EU countries of the union.

Mortgages aside, I'm at a loss as to what Redwood (with whom I usually find myself in agreement) wants a more hands-off approach on, unless it is major City institutions (banks, not stock exchanges), who I think are big enough and ugly enough to do what they like and take the consequences.

By analogy, I could not simply resign from my job; the only way out would be to get sacked for grave misconduct?

Interesting example Ken - your employer can alter the terms of your contract unilaterally - you are bound to accept those changes - only by resigning do you indicate your non-acceptance of his 'modified' terms and conditions.

You cannot however compare a contract between two individuals in one legal jurisdiction with inter-state treaties - you have obviously never had trans-national divorce and child custody problems, or tax discussions between nation states

TomTom @ 1626 "There are no mechanisms for Britain to unilaterally withdraw from the treaties"

Why don't we consult President Putin on his techniques as he had no problem recently in announcing a "moratorium" on Russia's participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty.

The difference is that the Treaty had never been ratified by NATO

Ratification Prospects for the Adapted CFE Treaty

Ratification by NATO Allies of the Adapted Treaty is awaiting Russia's compliance with adapted CFE flank provisions and continued fulfillment of its Istanbul summit commitments regarding withdrawals of Russian forces from Georgia and Moldova. The Adapted Treaty will enter into force 10 days after instruments of ratification have been deposited by all States Parties.

Tom Tom, no Parliament can bind its successor. If a Parliament were to vote to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, then its provisions would cease to apply to this country. Any ruling the ECJ made would be of no relevance to our domestic law, following such repeal.

Re Brian @ 10.40 - I agree the BBC reporting on News 24 was shocking. They even showed an old clip of Redwood trying to sing. It has nothing at all to do with the item but served to make the report negative and rubbish the party. There are too many in parts of the media that get away with manipulation of public opinion instead of actual reporting,

Tom Tom, no Parliament can bind its successor. If a Parliament were to vote to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, then its provisions would cease to apply to this country.

It depends upon the Judiciary. The Judiciary can simply apply precedent based upon case law and continue to uphold EU law. The notion that no Parliament can bind its successor is a nice fiction like much of our "constitution" but this government is about to sign long-term contracts for IT systems for IT cards which no future government will rescind.

The Conservative Governments perfected the art of signing commercial contracts which DID bind future Parliaments just as Siemens contract with the Passport Office, the Eurofighter, bound the incoming Labour Government and Parliament could be denied information on grounds of "commercial confidentiality"

9. ACTS of parliament derogatory from the power of fubfequent parliaments bind not. So the ftatute 11 Hen. VII. c. 1. which directs, that no perfon for affifting a king de facto fhall be attainted of treafon by act of parliament or otherwife, is held to be good only as to common profecutions for high treafon ; but will not reftrain or clog any parliamentary attainder o. Becaufe the legiflature, being in truth the fovereign power, is always of equal, always of abfolute authority : it acknowledges no fuperior upon earth, which the prior legiflature muft have been, if it's ordinances could bind the prefent parliament. And upon the fame principle Cicero, in his letters to Atticus, treats with a proper contempt thefe reftraining claufes which endeavour to tie up the hands of fucceeding legiflatures. “When you repeal the law itfelf, fays he, you at the fame time repeal the prohibitory “claufe, which guards againft fuch repeal p.”

10. LASTLY, acts of parliament that are impoffible to be performed are of no validity ; and if there arife out of them collaterally any abfurd confequences, manifeftly contradictory to common reafon, they are, with regard to thofe collateral confequences, void. I lay down the rule with thefe reftrictions ; though I know it is generally laid down more largely, that acts of parliament contrary to reafon are void. But if the parliament will pofitively enact a thing to be done which is unreafonable, I know of no power that can control it : and the examples ufually alleged in fupport of this fenfe of the rule do none of them prove, that where the main object of a ftatute is unreafonable the judges are at liberty to reject it ; for that were to fet the judicial power above that of the legiflature, which would be fubverfive of all government. But where fome collateral matter arifes out of the general words, and happens to be unreafonable ; there the judges are in decency to conclude that this confequcnce was not forefeen by the parliament, and therefore they are at liberty to expound the ftatute by equity, and only quoad hoc difregard it. Thus if an act of parliament gives a man power to try all caufes, that arife within his manor of Dale ; yet, if a caufe fhould arife in which he himfelf is party, the act is conftruced not to extend to that ; becaufe it is unreafonable that any man fhould determine his own quarrel q. But, if we could conceive it poffible for the parliament to enact, that he fhould try as well his own caufes as thofe of other perfons, there is no court that has power to defeat the intent of the legiflature, when couched in fuch evident and exprefs words, as leave no doubt whether it was the intent of the legiflature or no.

However Parliament has never before transferred sovereignty to any other state either de facto or de iure. I doubt Blackstone could have conceived of an English Parliament empowering supranational bodies with legal powers within this realm.

Habeas Corpus has been suspended, aspects of the Bill of Rights set aside, and private property subject to Compulsory Purchase Order and sequestration - I doubt Blackstone would have recognised any of these innovations as being other than arbitrary government - and the thought of Secondary Legislation or the guillotine would certainly have been innovations in his world.

Parliament has no power if its laws are ignored and the courts will not enforce them....the issue of deporting illegal immigrants reveals the impotence of Parliament and the Executive

Excellent to cut red tape and unnecessary regulations to help competitiveness. But I have reservations.

David Cameron once said that if the price of profit and financial efficiency is damage to families, then the price is not worthy paying. If regulations that protect employees, e.g. working time regulations, are proposed to be scrapped, might this clash with IDS’s work on the importance marriage and stable families for children and society? It must be obvious that parents working long hours don’t help to contribute to family stability, and not all have grandparents etc to help out.

We must beware of appearing to favour the pursuit of profit and financial efficiency over the interests of general well-being and society as a whole. The state has a role in restraining fallen aspects of our nature, and greed is part of that. I hope the report doesn’t slant too much towards an economic version of what I understood John Hayes MP in his excellent CH “Platform” article on 8 Aug referred to as individualistic liberalism (which seems to have too little regards are wider impacts on society), in which he said:

“We already know that Gordon Brown will not shift the Labour party to the left in any way that is meaningful to voters. Indeed, his pronouncements on a unified border force, super casinos and 24 hour drinking demonstrate that he is actually moving Labour further into Conservative territory. David Cameron …knows that we can only win by developing a new agenda that addresses the deep concerns that people have about the character of society….to appeal Conservatives must challenge selfish individualism as we once challenged the dull mediocrity of socialist egalitarianism.”

However I hope my concerns prove to be unfounded, and that John Redwood knows where the boundaries lie between unnecessary regulation on one hand, and on the other, those necessary to protect the general public interests e.g. in things like long working hours, health & safety and food safety.

The proposed scrapping of Home Information Packs would of course be very welcome.

After reading some of the comments here it really does seem that the Tory party is the one that is delusional. In the next European Election there will be even less MEPs from the U.K. Our so-called 'influence' in the E.U. is pretty marginal at present and with the smaller numbers we might as well just go home and let the 'benevolent' commission do it's work without the pretence of any democratic input. You're supporting a tribe that will become redundant once national parties become proscribed in favour of pan-european ones. What is the ********* point? You're supporting a bunch of careerists who will play to the faithful just enough to keep them on board? The old political dynasties are desperate to grab public money to prop them up and Nu-Lab have the BBC as their mouthpiece and still the voting turnout is falling! Don't you guys get it??????????

I would add that the Sunday Telegraph report linked by the Ed says John Redwood quite rightly refers to the BBC licence fee as a "poll tax". I have not come across anything suggestion his report recommend scrapping it. Let’s hope it does!

I agree with you Matt. The Brown Broadcasting Co. were absolutely, even actionably, disgraceful this morning. Jaw dropping stuff. Who on EARTH chose to put that clip in? Nothing to do with the subject. Everything to do with belittling John Redwood before they introduced the subject. Still, I expect the BBC depend on Nulabs patronage to keep going with OUR money!!!

Ending the excessive regulation that prevents business from flourishing is very good news. This might sound like a very simple argument but business creates work, the very jobs needed for people to enjoy a decent standard of living. I believe in giving business a free hand to develop, to grow, to be in a position to create those jobs. This is definately a step in the right direction.

None of this is possible without defaulting in EU treaty commitments. Redwood is actually saying he wants to leave the EU. While this may be a good idea, I doubt it's going to be acceptable to Cameron's brand of (non-)Conservatism. Cameron will either reject the proposals immediately (which will make him look weak and the party disunited, as it will be assumed that it was done because of the media attacks) or he will accept them and then be forced into a humiliating backtrack later.

That or he'll just not say anything until we forget about the whole thing, like with most of his "policy announcements".

As an aside, why is the media going on about "tax cuts"? Nothing being proposed will reduce the exchequer's income, and over time the lack of regulation coupled with unchanged taxation is likely to increase revenue from the recently boosted business.

None of this is possible without defaulting in EU treaty commitments. Redwood is actually saying he wants to leave the EU. While this may be a good idea, I doubt it's going to be acceptable to Cameron's brand of (non-)Conservatism.
David Davis and David Cameron have been saying that they intend to renegociate much of Britain's relationship with the EU, although they also reject leaving the EU, which given that the Council of Ministers seem unlikely to agree to countries opting out of the Working Time Regulations, leaving them with the choice of breaking one of their commitments or altering the way they are implemented to make them a civil matter rather than a criminal matter so that effectively in the main employers would choose whether to recognise or ignore the law on that.

1) £14 Billion is peanuts. The EU is costing the UK economy around £130 Billion/year. Being in the EU costs us now 700,000 jobs. (See Global Vision website.)If we had to pay all our "contributions" to the EU today it would amount to something like £500 Billion (my estimate allowing for inflation and interest) This is the cost of EU membership which Ted Heath got us into on the Lie that it would not affect our sovreignty. David Cameron and the Tory party refuse to justify what "benefits" we get from this vast cost of membership and loss of our democratic rights. John Redwood is not stupid, so he must know that what he is proposing is peanuts and not possible while we stay in the EU. Is this just another Tory scam like the Haigh "In Europe but not run by Europe" tripe.
2)The BBC is pro-EU,anti-UKIP and anti-Conservative. Nothing, but nothing, other than complete abolition of the BBC in its present form is ever going to change that. NOTE The BBC Trust has said "Impartiality has always been (together with independence) the BBC's defining quality". The BBC Trust is tasked with ensuring the impartiality of the BBC.

NOTE The BBC Trust has said "Impartiality has always been (together with independence) the BBC's defining quality". The BBC Trust is tasked with ensuring the impartiality of the BBC.
Jerry | August 13, 2007 at 03:28

And just who selects the BBC Trust and to whom, do they owe allegiance? I might suggest the Labour Party and the present PM, along with the senior apparatchiks within the BBC, with whom they want cordial relations and lots of invites to "events".

Just another example of the endemic corruption that exists in this country, and we have the gall to criticise African nations. Phew, kettle, pot, black.

The abolition of the Health and Safety Executive and the creation of separate inspectorates again for factories, nuclear industry, mines etc... might go a long way towards reducing the obsessively neurotic Safety Culture, in addition to reducing the number of laws on such things - perhaps for most premises it could become a civil matter with the police only being called in if someone is severely injured or dies.

BRAVO! This report contains a very small amount of the medicine the British economy needs. The values of hard-work, self-reliance and enterprise which appear to be a major theme of the report may even go some way to improving society more generally. This is also a perfectly Cameroonie theme to pursue. John Major won the 1992 GE in large part because of his Labour Tax Bombshell campaign. He then introduced 22 new taxes. The Tory reputation for economic competence that took 100+ years to build, was destroyed in a day due to ERM. The time has come to say we have learnt our lesson about European integration of any kind. What could possibly be a bigger 'change', so, one presumes, Cameroonian, than turning our backs on the tax rises of the last Conservative government, which were the prelude to the biggest defeat of any party in history? No wonder NuLab are so worried about the signs of a move back onto 'our' territory. If we can frame the debate about regulations and tax destroying jobs and prosperity for aspirant voters, we will be winning. So long as Labour are making the running with talk of 'Tory Cuts' we will probably lose. Tax/Regulation reductions should not be seen as some kind of private fetish which can only be surreptitiously bought out once we have taken a blood-oath to maintain NuLab's ineffective profligacy, they should be seen as the magic shears with which to trim back Leviathan and make Britain a richer, more efficient, more effective, more enterprising place with a significantly higher quality of life than we have at the moment. MORE OF THE SAME PLEASE...

Why not abolish the CAA and let airlines set their own safety standards ? People could then choose their flights based on accident rates and reputation ?
A plane falling out of the sky is a serious matter that can cause huge devestation, airline regulation involves matters of National Security preventing terrorism and attacks by other countries.

However consumer regulatory bits of the CAA could be abolished with it's role being stripped down to being one of safety and National Security.

As a practical matter it would take a long time and a lot of European Commission resource to take actions to fine the UK for failure to implement legislation. Faced with large scale non-implementation across a wide range of Directives the Commission would aim to seek agreement from HMG on a timetable for implementation rather than go all the way to the ECJ on each and every case (which would be immensely costly). Deliberate non-implementation and Non-payment would therefore be perfectly possible as a strategy provided that there was the political will behind it to follow through and not cave in. HMG would also need to provision for taking legal action to enforce those provisions of EU law which it considered worth keeping against other Member States in case they took retaliatory action (eg on tariffs, mutual recognition of standards etc).

There would also need to be a large provision made to enable HMG to defend challenges brought by individuals who were prejudiced by a failure to implement any EU legislation.

Realistically, the strategy would be a bonanza for lawyers and would be effective principally as a method of forcing withdrawal from the EU (in which case it would be better and cheaper to do this openly) or to seek to force negotiations for a new Treaty.

However, intentional non-compliance may be an effective tactic in a more focused way in respect of specific areas of regulation, particularly those where the relevant directives do not appear to create rights with direct effect which could be enforced in UK Courts once the implementation date has passed.

I read in the Telegraph that two thirds of businesses think government pledges to deregulate are worthless. And right they are since you cannot deregulate without going to the souce. The EU. And since Cameron is not prepared to do this he is pretty much worthless as a leader and a tory victory is as pointless as another labour one.

"David Davis and David Cameron have been saying that they intend to renegociate much of Britain's relationship with the EU, although they also reject leaving the EU, which given that the Council of Ministers seem unlikely to agree to countries opting out of the Working Time Regulations, leaving them with the choice of breaking one of their commitments or altering the way they are implemented to make them a civil matter rather than a criminal matter so that effectively in the main employers would choose whether to recognise or ignore the law on that."

How do they intend to "renegotiate our relationship"? The treaties have to be the same for everyone, so you dont get any treaty changes (including new opt-outs, old vetoes back, exemptions from policies or further rebates) unless there is unanimous agreement. What chance is there of that? Worse, we don't have any hold over them to try to force them to do it.

Either we leave, or we accept the integrationalist project. There is no middle way. Pretending that there is one is just self-delusion, and will make the hard decisions even harder to make when it becomes finally unavoidable.